• No results found

Characterization, treatment patterns, and patient related outcomes of patients with Fragile X syndrome in Germany: final results of the observational EXPLAIN FXS study


Academic year: 2020

Share "Characterization, treatment patterns, and patient related outcomes of patients with Fragile X syndrome in Germany: final results of the observational EXPLAIN FXS study"


Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text



Open Access

Characterization, treatment patterns, and

patient-related outcomes of patients with

Fragile X syndrome in Germany: final

results of the observational EXPLAIN-FXS


Frank Haessler


, Franziska Gaese


, Michael Huss


, Christoph Kretschmar


, Marc Brinkman


, Helmut Peters



Samuel Elstner


, Michael Colla


and David Pittrow



Background:As data on the phenotype, characteristics and management of patients with Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) are limited, we aimed to collect such data in Germany in experienced centres involved in the treatment of such patients.

Methods:EXPLAIN-FXS is a prospective observational (non-interventional) study (registry) performed between April 2013 and January 2016 at 18 sites in Germany. Requirements for patient participation included confirmed diagnosis of FXS by genetic testing (>200 CGG repeats) and written informed consent. Patients were followed for up to 2 years.

Results:Seventy-five patients (84.0 % males, mean age 16.7 ± 14.5 years, ranging from 2 - 82 years) were analysed. The mean 6-item score, determined according to Giangreco (J Pediatr 129:611-614, 1996), was 6.9 ± 2.5 points. At least one neurological finding each was noted in 53 patients (69.7 %). Specifically, ataxia was noted in 5 patients (6.6 %), lack of fine motor skills in 40 patients, (52.6 %), muscle tonus disorder in 4 patients (5.3 %), and other neurological disorders in 39 patients (51.3 %). Spasticity was not noted in any patient.

Seizures were reported in 6 patients (8.1 %), anxiety disorders in 22 patients (30.1 %), depression in 7 patients (9.6 %), ADHD/ADD in 36 patients (49.3 %), impairment of social behavior in 39 patients (53.4 %), and other comorbidities in 23 patients (31.5 %). The mean Aberrant Behaviour Checklist Community Edition (ABC-C) score on behavioral symptoms, obtained in 71 patients at first documentation, was 48.4 ± 27.8 (median 45.0, range 5-115). The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score, obtained in 59 patients at first documentation, was 84.9 ± 14.6 points (median 90; range 50–100). Conclusions:This report describes the largest cohort of patients with FXS in Europe. The reported observations indicate a substantial burden of disease for patients and their caregivers. Based on these observations, an early expert psychiatric diagnosis is recommended for suspected FXS patients. Further recommendations include multimodal and multi-professional management that is tailored to the individual patient’s needs.

Trial registration:The ClinTrials.gov identifier is NCT01711606. Registered on 18 October 2012.

Keywords:Fragile X syndrome, Health care, Outcomes, Ambulatory setting, Mental disorders, Caregiver burden, Quality of life

* Correspondence:frank.haessler@med.uni-rostock.de 1Zentrum für Nervenheilkunde, Klinik für Psychiatrie, Neurologie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie im Kindes- und Jugendalter,

Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Gehlsheimer Str. 20, D-18147 Rostock, Germany Full list of author information is available at the end of the article



Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is among the most com-mon inherited genetic disorders leading to intellectual disability and autism [1]. It is caused by expansion of a cytosine-guanine-guanine (CGG) triplet repeat in the fragile mental retardation 1 (FMR1) gene located on the X chromosome. The presence of more than 200 re-peats in the full mutation - compared with 6-44 rere-peats in normal individuals–is associated with complete or partial absence of the fragile mental retardation protein (FMRP), which regulates neurotransmitter-activated dendritic trans-lation and synaptic plasticity [2]. While both males and females can be affected by FXS, in females, the rates of explicit disease are much lower, and symptoms often milder, due to the inactivation of only one of the two X chromosomes in female cells (all females with FXS are mosaic by definition). A definitive diagnosis can be made via a simple blood sample test and DNA analysis by Southern blot or PCR [3].

Reduced intelligence is a major symptom of FXS, vary-ing from learnvary-ing difficulties to severe cognitive impair-ment [4]. Speech, language, and attention deficit occur frequently [5, 6]. Behavioral problems and mood instabil-ity often present as the most debilitating aspects of the disease and reduction in these problems are the pivotal focus of drug therapy [7]. Other psychopathological syn-dromes and disorders are also prevalent: up to 50 % of males with FXS have autistic spectrum disorders [8–10]. Every sixth child with FXS suffers from seizures [11].

Therapeutic options are very limited [12]. The full spectrum of psychotropic drugs (as per label and off-label) is utilized for the treatment of attention deficit disorder, anxiety, hyperactivity, mood swings, anger, depression, seizures, self-injury, and sleep disorders [13, 14].

Further, non-pharmacological therapy such as speech-language therapy or occupational therapy is frequently indicated [15]. In a recent systematic review of 31 inter-vention studies of individuals with FXS, overall results suggested that a behavioral approach to intervention shows promise [16]. Preliminary experience indicates that assistive technology (i.e. optic sensors such as pho-tocells) generally may be of use to facilitate employment and opportunities of choice [17, 18].

Based on their synaptic mechanisms, specific agents in-cluding arbaclofen, ganaxolone, acamprosate, minocycline, as well as the mGluR5 inhibitors AFQ056 (mavoglurant by Novartis) and RG7090 (basimglurant by Roche) have been investigated in FXS [19, 20]. At the time when the present study was planned and initiated, the latter two substances were under investigation in placebo controlled phase IIb/III studies. However, these were discontinued in 2014 due to lack of efficacy in the FXS indication.

In Germany and other European countries, data on the phenotype, characteristics, quality of life, caregiver

burden and other aspects of the management of pa-tients with FXS are limited. The current study aimed to fill these gaps. It was initiated as a longitudinal study to investigate changes in psychometric parame-ters over time.

Methods Patients

Patients (of all ages and both genders) required con-firmed diagnosis of FXS by genetic testing (>200 CGG repeats), as well as written informed consent, to participate. No additional genetic testing was required for this study.

Patient data were collected at first documentation and approximately every 6 months thereafter. Patients were to be followed for at least 2 years. As many patients were included at a later stage, the duration of follow-up for these patients was limited.

Study design

The present study is a prospective observational (non-interventional) study (registry) in Germany. Details of the study protocol have been reported earlier [21]. The study was conducted in accordance with the local laws and regulations [22, 23]. The study identifier at ClinTrials.gov is NCT01711606 (date of registration 18 October 2012).

In 20 % of participating centres, on-site monitoring of the centres was done with source data verification. Physicians received remuneration for participation.


Physicians from about 50 centres (hospitals and phys-ician practices), all experienced in the management of FXS, participated in the study. Specialists from other disciplines were also involved, such as child/adolescent psychiatrists, general psychiatrists, or physicians in social paediatric centres.


At the first documentation visit, data on the following parameters were documented:

Demographic data (birth year, gender, height, and weight)

Availability of prior genetic testing results (to confirm FXS diagnosis)

Status/medical history of relatives (FXS status in siblings, parents, or other family members; selected comorbidities in father or mother; educational degree of parents). No data on premutation in parents was collected.


FXS patient history (date of diagnosis and symptoms at diagnosis as measured by the six-item checklist of Giangreco et al. [24]

Information on autistic-like behaviour (using the checklist by Giangreco et al. [24], specifying characteristics such as tactile defensiveness, perseverative speech, hand flapping, and poor eye contact)

Noteworthy life events in the past six months (e.g. change of caregiver, relocation, death of relatives, change of school or workplace)

Educational status or employment status, as appropriate

Comorbid disorders of the patient (seizures, anxiety, depression, attention deficit disorder, other)

Neurologic/psychiatric status

Previous and current medical and non-pharmacological therapy for FXS

Symptoms Check List (SCL-27) [25,26]

Economic parameters: contacts by physicians (various specialties), days of hospitalisation since suspected FXS diagnosis, caregiver’s absence from work

Results of psychometric testing:

○IQ testing: Test of adaptive intelligence (Adaptives Intelligenz Diagnostikum, AID) [27], Hamburg-Wechsler intelligence test for children (HAWIK-R/HAWIE-R) [28], Kaufmann

Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) [29], Snijders Oomen Test [30]

○Aberrant Behavior Checklist Community Edition (ABC-C) [31,32], a proxy-completed instrument for rating maladaptive and inappropriate behaviours of individuals with intellectual


Quality of life questionnaires (available as paper forms in the study file)

○EQ-5D (adults) [33] or EQ-5D-Y (children and adolescents) [34], filled out by patient with support from caregiver

○Eltern Belastungs Inventar (EBI): German version of the Parenting Stress Index (PSI) questionnaire, if caregiver is a family member [35] ○Nurses’Observation Scale for In-patient Evaluation (NOSIE), if caregiver is not a family member [36,37]

○Short version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (Mini-ICF) rating for psychiatric disorders [38], filled out by the caregiver

At the follow-up visits (approximately every 6 months), information on the following parameters was docu-mented, in the same manner as at first documentation:

Noteworthy life events (none, change of caregiver, change of residence, divorce or marital separation of parents, death of relative, birth of sibling, starting school, change of workplace, other)

Educational status and employment status of the patient

current medical and non-pharmacological therapy

Economic parameters

Results of psychometric testing (as at the first documentation visit)

Quality of life questionnaires (as at the first documentation visit)

Data on patient history and characteristics were re-trieved from medical records. Data on quality of life and psychometric assessments were collected on self-administered paper forms which were filled out by the patients and/or their caregivers.

Statistical analysis

The sample size was based on feasibility aspects. The analysis set consisted of all patients with confirmed FXS diagnosis included in the study. Data were analysed descriptively, using established statistical and epidemio-logical methods. Continuous variables are reported as median with interquartiles and other percentiles, and as mean with standard deviation (SD), together with mini-mum and maximini-mum values. Categorical variables were reported as absolute values and relative percentages. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS version 9.2 (Cary, NC, USA).

The authors adhered to the STROBE methodology [39].


Patient characteristics

Of the 76 patients who were screened and found eligible, 75 provided data and were included in the analysis. Their characteristics are shown in Table 1. The total number of documented visits was 339 (75.3 % of the 450 maximum total possible visits for the 75 patients).

Of these 75 patients, 63 (84.0 %) were males and 12 (16.0 %) were females. The mean age was 16.7 ± 14.5 years, ranging from 2 to 82 years. Patients had siblings with FXS in 17 cases (22.7 %), indicating an extra disease burden on the afflicted families.

The main caregivers were the parents (or a parent) for 62 patients (82.7 %). Notably, of these parents, 45 were married (61.6 %) and 6 were not married but living together (8.2 %).


The mean 6-item score according to Giangreco (account-ing for intelligence impairment, family anamnesis, long nar-row face, large or prominent ears, hyperactivity, and autistic features) was 6.9 ± 2.5 points.

Impaired intelligence was determined based on school performance, academic achievement, and IQ tests. Attendance at a school for children with special needs was a major criterion for impaired intelligence. Psychometric tests used at the first documentation were the Snijders Oomen-Test (10 patients); the HAWIK/ HAWIE (8 patients); the Kaufman Test K-ABC (5 pa-tients); other (not specified) tests (10 patients).

For the calculation of the Giangreco index (n= 75 patients), 65 patients had an IQ value < 70 points; 8 patients an IQ value of 70 to 85 points; and 2 patients >

85 points. Overall, 73 patients (97.3 %) were deemed to have impaired intelligence.

Of the 75 patients, 53 suffered from one or more neurological signs (69.7 %; Table 2). Specifically, ataxia was noted in 5 patients (6.6 %), lack of fine motor skills in 40 patients (52.6 %), muscle tonus disorder in 4 patients (5.3 %), and others in 39 patients (51.3 %). Spas-ticity, defined as spastic paresis or occurrence of pyram-idal signs, was not noted in any patient.

Comorbidities and treatment


The prevalence of seizures and mental disorders was high (Table 3). Seizures were reported in 6 patients (8.1 %), anxiety disorders in 22 patients (30.1 %), depres-sion in 7 patients (9.6 %), ADHD/ADD in 36 patients

Table 1Characteristics of patients with FXS and their family members

Number of patients:

Characteristic ≤

13 years 14-17 years 18+ years Total (all patients)

40 11 24 75

Age, years 7.7 ± 3.1 15.3 ± 1.1 32.2 ± 16.4 16.7 ± 14.5

range, 2-13 range, 14-17 range, 18-82 range, 2-82

Impaired intelligence 38 (95.0 %) 11 (100.0 %) 24 (100.0 %) 73 (97.4 %)


Males 35 (87.5 %) 8 (72.7 %) 20 (83.3 %) 63 (84.0 %)

Females 5 (12.5 %) 3 (27.3 %) 4 (16.7 %) 12 (16.0 %)


Males 23 (53.5 %) 10 (58.8 %) 16 (47.1 %) 49 (52.1 %)

Females 20 (46.5 %) 7 (41.2 %) 18 (52.9 %) 45 (47.9 %)

Age of siblings in years 8.9 ± 6.2 15.7 ± 7.9 32.6 ± 21.7 18.4 ± 17.5

range, 0-26 range, 1-27 range, 1-85 range, 0-85

Siblings with FXS (genetically validated) 14 (32.6 %) 7 (41.2 %) 19 (55.9 %) 40 (42.6 %)

Other family members with FXS 11 (27.5 %) 5 (45.5 %) 17 (70.8 %) 33 (44.0 %)

Main caregiver: patients living with parent(s) 38 (95.0 %) 9 (81.8 %) 15 (62.5 %) 62 (82.7 %)

Values shown are means ± standard deviation or n (%). Impaired intelligence was determined based on school performance, academic achievement, and IQ tests. Attendance at a school for children with special needs was a major criterion for impaired intelligence. Psychometric tests used at the first visit were: the Snijders-Oomen Test (10 patients); the HAWIK/HAWIE-R (8 patients): the Kaufmann Test K-ABC (5 patients); other (not specified) tests (10 patients)

Table 2Neurological findings

Finding ≤13 years (n= 40) 14-17 years (n= 11) 18+ years (n= 24) Total (all patients,n= 75)

n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)

At least one of the following 33 (82.5) 9 (81.8) 11 (45.8) 53 (69.7)

Ataxia 4 (10.0) 0 1 (4.2) 5 (6.6)

Spasticity 0 0 0 0

Impaired fine motor skills 26 (65.0) 9 (81.8) 5 (20.8) 40 (52.6)

Muscle tonus disorders 3 (7.5) 1 (9.1) 0 4 (5.3)

Others 24 (60.0) 6 (54.5) 9 (37.5) 39 (51.3)

These conditions were established by treating physicians

Spasticity was defined as spastic paresis or occurrence of pyramidal signs


(49.3 %), and impairment of social behavior in 39 patients (53.4 %). Other comorbidities were noted in 23 patients (31.5 %), of which the following were seen in more than 1 individual: obesity (5 patients), sleep disorder (4), foot deformity (3), autism and autism spectrum disorder (4), and increased infection susceptibility (2). Co-morbidities were treated with a variety of medications which are detailed in Table 4. The most frequently noted drugs were amphetamines and methylphenidate, for the indications of ADHD and behaviour disorders.

Among non-pharmacological therapies, the following were noted at first documentation, in descending fre-quency: speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, therapeutic pedagogy, osteopathy, music therapy, socio-therapy, animal assisted socio-therapy, and various other ther-apies (Table 5).

Life events at first documentation


Relevant life events included change of reference person to the patient (2 cases, 2.6 %), moving home (5 cases,

Table 3Prevalence of seizures and mental disorders

Disorder ≤13 years (n= 40) 14-17 years (n= 11) 18+ years (n= 24) Total (all patients,n= 75)

n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)

Seizures 5 (12.8) 0 1 (4.2) 6 (8.1)

Anxiety disorders 12 (30.8) 3 (27.3) 7 (30.4) 22 (30.1)

Depression 3 (7.7) 1 (9.1) 3 (13.0) 7 (9.6)

ADHD/ADD 24 (61.5) 7 (63.6) 5 (21.7) 36 (49.3)

Impairment of social behaviour 22 (56.4) 6 (54.5) 11 (47.8) 39 (53.6)

Other 11 (28.2) 4 (36.4) 8 (34.8) 23 (31.5)

Suicidality 0 0 0 0

These conditions were established by treating physicians

“Other”disorders were not further specified by documenting physicians

Table 4Drug treatment of seizures and mental disorders in the 12 months prior to first documentation

Comorbidity category (n of afflicted patients)

Substance Patient number ≤13 years (n= 40) 14-17 years (n= 11) 18+ years (n= 24) Total (all patients,n= 75)

n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)

ADH (36) Amphetamine 9 (37.5) 4 (57.1) 1 (20.0) 13 (17.1)

Atomoxetine, Desipramine, etc. 0 1 (14.3) 0 2 (2.6)

Methylphenidate 9 (37.5) 3 (42.9) 1 (20.0) 14 (18.4)

Risperidone, Quetiapine, etc. 3 (12.5) 1 (14.3) 0 6 (7.9)

Other 11 (45.8) 2 (28.6) 1 (20.0) 14 (18.4)

Anxiety (22) Fluoxetine, Fluvoxamine, etc. 5 (41.7) 2 (66.7) 2 (28.6) 9 (11.8)

Amitriptyline, Imipramine, etc. 0 0 0

Diazepam, Lorazepam, etc. 0 0 0

Risperidone, Clozapine, etc. 0 0 2 (28.6) 2 (2.6)

Other 6 (50.0) 2 (66.7) 1 (14.3) 9 (11.8)

Conduct disorders (39) Methylphenidate, Amphetamine, etc. 8 (36.4) 2 (33.3) 2 (18.2) 12 (15.8)

Pipamperone, Melperone, etc. 0 0 0 1 (1.3)

Risperidone, Clozapine, etc. 5 (22.7) 0 2 (18.2) 10 (13.2)

Other 14 (63.6) 4 (66.7) 4 (36.4) 23 (30.3)

Depression (7) Fluvoxamine, Citalopram, etc. 2 (66.7) 1 (100.0) 1 (33.3) 4 (5.3)

Venlafaxine, Bupropion, etc. 0 1 (100.0) 0

Lithium 1 (100.0)

Other 1 (33.3) 0 0 1 (1.3)

Seizures (6) Valproate 1 (20.0) 0 1 (100.0) 2 (2.6)

Other 3 (60.0) 0 1 (100.0) 6 (7.9)


6.6 %), separation of parents (3 cases, 3.9 %), death of a close person (2 cases, 2.6 %), starting school/work (1 pa-tient, 1.3 %), and other events (9 patients, 11.7 %). No such relevant life events occurred in 59 patients (77.6 %).

School type

Fifty one patients (77.3 %) had been attending school, and 33 of these patients were currently attending school. Mean duration of school education was 7.7 ± 3.6 years (range 1- 15). Of these, 32 children and adolescents (62.7 % of those attending a school) were in a school for the intellectually disabled, 14 (27.5 %) attended a similar school type for learning disabled students (“Förderschule”), 7 (13.7 %) attended a regular school with integration measures, 2 (3.9 %) attended a regu-lar school, and 3 (4.9 %) attended a different school type (none of the above).

Psychometric and sociometric assessments

The 27-item symptom checklist mean score, calculated in 54 patients at first documentation, was 4.7 ± 3.1 points.

The patients had taken various IQ tests prior to first documentation or took these during the course of the study.

The Aberrant Behaviour Checklist Community Edition (ABC-C) score, obtained in 71 patients at first documen-tation, was 48.4 ± 27.8 (median, 45.0; range, 5-115; Table 6). At follow-up 1 (in 60 patients) the score was 38.6 ± 23.4 points; at follow-up 2 (in 48 patients), it was 42.0 ± 25.1 points; at follow-up 3 (in 41 patients), it was 43.0 ± 23.1 points; and at follow-up 4 (in 27 patients), it was 44.3 ± 22.7 points.

The parenting stress index (PSI) total score, obtained in 64 patients, was 74.6 ± 12.1 (median, 85.0; range, 47 to 85). In the child domain, the mean score was 78.5 ± 10.0 and in the parent domain, it was 65.6 ± 13.2. Over-all, patients reported a low/normal stress level in 6 cases (9.4 %), a high stress level in 21 cases (32.8 %), and a very high stress level in 37 cases (57.8 %). Children reported a low/normal stress level in 2 cases (3.1 %), a high stress level in 14 cases (21.9 %), and a very high stress level in 48 cases (75.0 %). In parents, the stress level was lower, and low/normal stress levels were reported by 25 respondents (39.1 %), high stress levels by 22 respondents (34.4 %), and very high stress levels by 50 respondents (78.1 %).


The Nurses’ Observational Scale for Inpatient Evalu-ation (NOSIE) mean index value, based on answers from 28 patients at first documentation, was 151.5 ± 0.5 (me-dian, 151.1; range, 151 -153).

Table 5Non-pharmacological therapy (number of appointments) in the 12 months prior to inclusion

Therapy ≤13 years (n= 40) 14-18 years (n= 11) 18+ years (n= 24) Total (n= 75)

n mean n mean n mean n mean

Psychotherapy 9 5.1 ± 13.2 0 - 11 2.6 ± 7.5 20 3.8 ± 10.2

Occupational therapy 23 30.6 ± 17.9 9 25.9 ± 17.6 11 - 43 21.8 ± 19.9

Speech therapy 32 30.8 ± 17.2 4 37.0 ± 29.1 9 1.1 ± 3.3 45 25.4 ± 20.5

Sociotherapy 8 5.0 ± 14.1 1 30.0 9 - 18 3.9 ± 11.4

Therapeutic pedagogy 18 21.4 ± 20.4 1 20.0 10 4.0 ± 12.6 29 15.3 ± 19.4

Music therapy 10 14.0 ± 19.0 1 40.0 9 0 20 9.0 ± 16.5

Osteopathy 10 0.9 ± 1.5 1 2.0 10 0.3 ± 0.9 21 0.7 ± 1.3

Animal-assisted therapy 3 0.0 ± 0.0 0 - 4 - 7 0.0 ± 0.0


Other 29 39.7 ± 35.6 4 15.3 ± 18.9 10 4.0 ± 12.6 43 29.1 ± 33.9

Table 6ABC Community score at first documentation

≤13 years (n= 40) 14-17 years (n= 11) 18+ years (n= 24) Total (all patients,n= 75) Score/ subscores

Total score 55.4 ± 29.7 48.5 ± 23.0 36.4 ± 23.1 48.4 ± 27.8

Irritability 18.4 ± 11.8 15.4 ± 11.6 9.1 ± 7.6 15.0 ± 11.3

Lethargy 7.7 ± 6.2 6.4 ± 5.1 6.9 ± 7.1 7.2 ± 6.3

Stereotypic behaviour 6.6 ± 4.9 5.1 ± 4.8 3.4 ± 3.3 5.4 ± 4.6

Hyperactivity 13.5 ± 7.7 8.7 ± 5.7 7.4 ± 6.5 10.9 ± 7.5

Inappropriate speech 4.1 ± 3.4 5.9 ± 3.4 4.1 ± 3.7 4.4 ± 3.5


On the mini-ICF, the average value at first documenta-tion, obtained in 73 patients, was 2.2 ± 0.8 (median, 2.2; range, 0 to 4).

EuroQol 5D-3 L

The EQ-5D index in adults at first documentation, ob-tained in 41 patients, was 0.7 ± 0.3 points (median, 0.7; range, 0-1). The EQ-5D index in children at first docu-mentation, obtained in 22 patients, was 0.7 ± 0.3 points (median, 0.8; range, 0-1). The EQ-5D time trade-off value in adults at first documentation, obtained in 22 patients, was 0.8 ± 0.3 points (median, 0.9; range, 0-1). The EQ-5D time trade-off value in children at first documentation, obtained in 41 patients, was 0.7 ± 0.3 points (median, 0.9; range, 0-1). On the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS), the mean value at first documen-tation, obtained in 59 patients, was 84.9 ± 14.6 points (median, 90; range, 50 - 100).


The EXPLAIN study is the largest and the only longitu-dinal European observational study investigating clinical characteristics and caregiver situation of patients with FXS. It documents 75 individuals in a wide age range, from 2 to 82 years. As expected, the prevalence of neurological findings and other comorbidities was very high. Almost every patient in our study had a relevant mental or neurological disorder which required pharma-cological or non-pharmapharma-cological treatment. In younger patients, externalizing symptoms prevailed; in older pa-tients, internalizing symptoms prevailed.

The only systematic recording of data on patients with FXS is currently taking place in the USA, in the context of individual projects, namely by the Fragile X Clinical & Research Consortium (FXCRC), with its FORWARD Registry and Database, and by our Fragile X World Surveys (twice per year, also supported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control) [14, 15, 40].

The majority of documented patients in the present study were children and adolescents; only 29 were adults. Thus, it is understandable that most patients were still living with their parents, who mostly were the main caregivers. This indicates solid family structures, and might be a finding based on patient selection. The proxy information collected in this study can be considered to be“first-hand”and very reliable.

In light of the common social and behavior problems linked with FXS, an important tool for our study was the ABC-C questionnaire. It is a sensitive instrument for rating maladaptive and inappropriate behaviors in pa-tients with intellectual disabilities. In papa-tients with FXS, it has also been used as an endpoint in clinical studies (in the original or a modified version) [41–43]. For

example, in the mavoglurant studies, mean total scores at first documentation were, across the placebo and treatment groups, between 40.0 and 50.6 points in adults, and between 48.3 and 58.5 points in adolescents. The corresponding scores in our study were substan-tially lower in adults (36.4 points), and similar in adoles-cents (48.5 points). During the study, we found small improvements in the ABC-C score which remained constant over time. This might represent a study artefact or a nonspecific benefit of study participation.

The study shows a high burden of comorbidities as well as mental symptoms. The rates of mental health symptoms, at least in children and adolescents, were higher than the prevalence of such symptoms in the general population of individuals with intellectual dis-ability in this age range. The prevalence of mental health symptoms in the general population of individuals with intellectual disability has been documented as follows: 24 % with impaired social behavior; 13 % with emotional problems; and 26 % with hyperactivity [44]. In EXPLAIN, the prevalences were 53.6 %, 39.7 %, and 49.3 %, respect-ively. As autistic behaviors were not specifically assessed in EXPLAIN, no conclusions can be drawn about them. However, overall, 42 % of parents and other caregivers reported such symptoms in their patients without describ-ing them in detail. This prevalence is comparable with international studies reporting a prevalence of autistic symptoms between 25 and 47 % [45].

Compared with another study in a large US American cohort (89 women and 239 men aged between 22 and 64 years) [46], affective symptoms were less frequent in the adults (71.7 % versus 43.4 %). Hyperactivity in this age range occurred in only 21.7 %. Conversely, Hartley et al. described hyperactivity in 64.3 % of adults with FXS [46].

It was an unexpected finding that the comorbid men-tal health symptoms and diseases usually were treated with medications. Usually the prescription of psycho-pharmacological drugs in individuals with impaired intelligence is between 21 and 45 % [47]. The high pre-scription prevalence is probably an indicator of the severity of the individual disorder. Usually, for patients with FXS, findings from other neurodevelopmental disor-ders such as autism or other forms of intellectual disability are extrapolated for therapy planning [48–50]. The FXCRC has highlighted that this patient group is sensitive to psychotropic medication, and recommends low doses and cautious titration [51].


is widely used in studies with adults as a source of generic health-related quality of life information and utility weights to inform resource allocation decisions. Despite methodological limitations, the EQ-5D in its “youth” form is suitable for the same aim in children [34, 53]. On the EQ-5D scale, the EQ-5D time trade off (TTO) consists of a hypothetical trade-off between a shorter lifespan and a healthier quality of life. The respective reference score for the FXS population was calculated as described by Greiner et al. [33] The utility index value (0.8) was high, but showed substantial vari-ation between patients. It remained relatively constant across the follow-up visits.

As a limitation to this study, a number of instruments which were used in other FXS studies were not applied in our study. For example, the mavoglurant studies had applied, among others, the SRS scale to identify the pres-ence of autistic social impairment; the TEA-Ch to test every-day attention and inhibition in children; or the widely used Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale to assess treatment response in psychiatric patients [42]. This study might be prone to selection bias: [54] participating centres might represent a positive selection with particular interest in FXS (and research questions). Participating pa-tients (or their caregivers) might be more likely than others to understand the disease and to contribute to the optimization of management. Finally, we did not collect information on associated non-neurological medical prob-lems which are known to be frequent among patients with FXS (such as otitis media, gastrointestinal problems and obstructive sleep apnea), and which increase the propensity for many behavioural problems [55].


In conclusion, the findings in EXPLAIN-FXS confirm the substantial burden of psychiatric and mental prob-lems in patients with FXS in all age groups. In these patients, an early expert psychiatric diagnosis should be initiated. The resulting management should be multi-modal and multi-professional and should be tailored to the individual patient’s needs.


ABC-C:Aberrant behaviour checklist (Community Edition); ADD: Attention deficit disorder; ADHD: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;

BfArM: Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte; BMI: Body mass index; CGG: Cytosine guanine guanine (triplet); CRO: Clinical Research Organisation; EBI: Eltern-belastungs-inventar; EQ-5D: EuroQol 5 Dimensions; EQ-5D-Y: EuroQol 5 Dimensions Youth; FMR: Fragile X mental retardation; FMRP: Fragile X mental retardation protein; FSA: Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle für die Arzneimittelindustrie; FU: Follow-up; FXS: Fragile X Syndrome; ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health; IQ: Intelligence quotient; NIS: Non-interventional study; NOSIE: Nurses’ observation scale for inpatient evaluation; PSI: Parental stress index; SCL: Symptom checklist; SDV: Source document verification; TTO: Time to trade off; VAS: Visual analog scale; VfA: Verband Forschender



The following centers in Germany documented patients in the study: Elstner, Samuel (Dr.), KEH gGmbH, Berlin

Schilbach, Susanne (Dr. med.), SPZ Hochfranken, Hof Kretzschmar, Christoph (Dr. med.), Städt. KH Neustadt, Dresden Baumgartner, Bastian (Dr.), Kinder-KH St. Marien, Landshut Neff, Andrea (Dr. med.), LVR-Klinik Langenfeld, Langenfeld Feiner, Christoph (Dr. med.), Tuttlingen

Reitzle, Karl (Dr. med.), Fa. MüMed, München

Colla, Michael (Dr. med.), Charité Campus Buch (ECRC), Berlin May, Rita (Dr. med.), Ev. KH Königin E. Herzberge gGmbH, Berlin Hameister, Karin (Dr. med.), Fachklinik f. Kinderneurol., Unna Opp, Joachim (Dr. med.), EKO Ev. KH Oberhausen GmbH, Oberhausen Hirner, Martina (Dr. med.), Nürnberg

Weirich, Steffen (Dr. med.), Universitätsmedizin, Rostock, Unger, Britta (Dr. med.), Starnberg

Fiedler, Andreas (Dr. med.), Klinikum St. Marien, Amberg Huss, Michael (Prof. Dr. med.), Univ.-Med. Univers. Mainz Peters, Helmut (CA Dr. med.), Rheinhessen-Fachkl. Alzey, Alzey Müller-Schlüter, Karen (Dr. med.), SPZ OGD GmbH, Neuruppin Spiegler, Juliane (Dr. med.), Uniklinik Schleswig-Holst., Lübeck Data management and statistical analyses were performed by Winicker Norimed, Nürnberg, Germany.

The authors acknowledge language editing by Dr. Claudia S. Copeland, Carpe Diem Biomedical Writing and Editing, New Orleans, USA.


The study was fully funded by Novartis Pharma, Nürnberg. Also the publication costs of this article were paid by Novartis Pharma. The Novartis employees MB and Heike Schieb (medical department) contributed to the design of the study, and MB contributed to the analysis, interpretation of data and to the writing of this manuscript. In addition to his authorship DP provided editorial support (assistance in drafting and editing of the manuscript wording, and assistance with the submission process) with funding from Novartis Pharma GmbH.

Availability of data and materials

Due to ethical restrictions, data are only available upon request. Although our data are anonymized (center ID and patient ID), FXS is an infrequent disease, which is why we are concerned about placing the data into an online repository. These concerns are shared by the lead IRB of this project, in particular as the informed consent form that all patients signed does not include the possibility of an online repository of individual patient data. Interested researchers may submit requests for minimized anonymous datasets to the lead author.


All authors made substantial contributions to the design, coordination of the study, and interpretation of results. FH, DP, and MB wrote the protocol. DP and FH wrote the initial draft of this publication, and FG, MH, MC, CK, HP and SE gave input to the protocol, contributed to the interpretation of data and writing of this publication. All authors approved the final version to be published.

Competing interests

MB is a full-time employee of Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany. The other authors have received honoraria from Novartis Pharma, Nürnberg, for serving on the advisory board of this study, on the Novartis speakers’ bureau, or for research projects related to FXS. The authors declare no other competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate


Author details

1Zentrum für Nervenheilkunde, Klinik für Psychiatrie, Neurologie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie im Kindes- und Jugendalter,

Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Gehlsheimer Str. 20, D-18147 Rostock, Germany. 2Abt. Psychiatrische Therapie für Menschen mit Geistiger Behinderung, Isar-Amper-Klinikum gGmbH, Klinikum München-Ost, Haar, Germany. 3Rheinhessen-Fachklinik Mainz, Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie, Mainz, Germany.4Städt. Krankenhaus Dresden-Neustadt, Zentrum für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin - Sozialpädiatrisches Zentrum, Dresden, Germany. 5Medizinische Abteilung, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany. 6Berliner Behandlungszentrum der Abteilung für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Königin Elisabeth Herzberge gGmbH, Berlin, Germany.7Experimental and Clinical Research Center, Charité

–Campus Berlin Buch & Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité–Campus Mitte, Berlin, Germany.8Institut für Klinische Pharmakologie, Medizinische Fakultät, Technische Universität Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Dresden, Germany.9University Medicine, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Mainz, Germany.

Received: 21 March 2016 Accepted: 29 August 2016


1. Carter MT, Scherer SW. Autism spectrum disorder in the genetics clinic: a review. Clin Genet. 2013;83(5):399–407.

2. Wang T, Bray SM, Warren ST. New perspectives on the biology of fragile X syndrome. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2012;22(3):256–63.

3. Sofocleous C, Kolialexi A, Mavrou A. Molecular diagnosis of Fragile X syndrome. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2009;9(1):23–30.

4. Lewis P, Abbeduto L, Murphy M, Richmond E, Giles N, Bruno L, et al. Cognitive, language and social-cognitive skills of individuals with fragile X syndrome with and without autism. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2006;50(Pt 7):532–45.

5. Barnes E, Roberts J, Long SH, Martin GE, Berni MC, Mandulak KC, et al. Phonological accuracy and intelligibility in connected speech of boys with fragile X syndrome or Down syndrome. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(4): 1048–61.

6. Deshpande PS, Coffey DB. Fragile X syndrome and attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder symptoms. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2011; 21(6):639–42.

7. Sansone SM, Widaman KF, Hall SS, Reiss AL, Lightbody A, Kaufmann WE, et al. Psychometric study of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist in Fragile X Syndrome and implications for targeted treatment. J Autism Dev Disord. 2012;42(7):1377–92.

8. McCary LM, Roberts JE. Early identification of autism in fragile X syndrome: a review. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2013;57(9):803–14.

9. Gabis LV, Baruch YK, Jokel A, Raz R. Psychiatric and autistic comorbidity in fragile X syndrome across ages. J Child Neurol. 2011;26(8):940–8.

10. Sabaratnam M, Murthy NV, Wijeratne A, Buckingham A, Payne S. Autistic-like behaviour profile and psychiatric morbidity in Fragile X Syndrome: a prospective ten-year follow-up study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003; 12(4):172–7.

11. Berry-Kravis E, Raspa M, Loggin-Hester L, Bishop E, Holiday D, Bailey DB. Seizures in fragile X syndrome: characteristics and comorbid diagnoses. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2010;115(6):46172.

12. Rueda JR, Ballesteros J, Tejada MI. Systematic review of pharmacological treatments in fragile X syndrome. BMC Neurol. 2009;9:53.

13. Berry-Kravis E, Potanos K. Psychopharmacology in fragile X syndrome– present and future. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2004;10(1):428. 14. Bailey Jr DB, Raspa M, Bishop E, Olmsted M, Mallya UG, Berry-Kravis E.

Medication utilization for targeted symptoms in children and adults with fragile X syndrome: US survey. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2012;33(1):62–9. 15. Martin GE, Ausderau KK, Raspa M, Bishop E, Mallya U, Bailey Jr DB. Therapy

service use among individuals with fragile X syndrome: findings from a US parent survey. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2013;57(9):837–49.

16. Moskowitz LJ, Jones EA. Uncovering the evidence for behavioral interventions with individuals with fragile X syndrome: a systematic review. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;38:223–41.

17. Stasolla F, Damiani R, Perilli V, Di Leone A, Albano V, Stella A, et al. Technological supports to promote choice opportunities by two children with fragile X syndrome and severe to profound developmental disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35(11):2993–3000.

18. Stasolla F, Perilli V, Damiani R, Albano V. Assistive technology to promote occupation and reduce mouthing by three boys with fragile X syndrome. Dev Neurorehabil. 2016: 1-9. Epub ahead of print.

19. Hagerman R, Lauterborn J, Au J, Berry-Kravis E. Fragile X syndrome and targeted treatment trials. Results Probl Cell Differ. 2012;54:297335. 20. Levenga J, Hayashi S, de Vrij FM, Koekkoek SK, van der Linde HC,

Nieuwenhuizen I, et al. AFQ056, a new mGluR5 antagonist for treatment of fragile X syndrome. Neurobiol Dis. 2011;42(3):3117.

21. Haessler F, Gaese F, Colla M, Huss M, Kretschmar C, Brinkman M, et al. EXPLAIN Fragile-X: an explorative, longitudinal study on the characterization, treatment pathways, and patient-related outcomes of Fragile X Syndrome. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13:339.

22. Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Products (BfArM). Recommendations of the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Products and the Paul Ehrlich Institute on the planning, conduct and analysis of post marketing studies dated 7 July 2010. Internet: http://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Bekanntmachungen/DE/ Arzneimittel/klinPr/bm-KlinPr-20100707-NichtinterventePr-pdf.pdf?__ blob=publicationFile&v=6. Accessed 7 Mar 2016.

23. German Association of Research-based Pharmaceutical Companies (Verband der forschenden Arzneimittelhersteller VFA). Rules for publication of post-marketing surveillance studies. Internet: http://www.vfa.de/de/arzneimittel-forschung/datenbanken-zu-arzneimitteln/nisdb/nis-empfehlungen. Accessed 7 Mar 2016.

24. Giangreco CA, Steele MW, Aston CE, Cummins JH, Wenger SL. A simplified six-item checklist for screening for fragile X syndrome in the pediatric population. J Pediatr. 1996;129(4):611–4.

25. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Covi L. SCL-90: an outpatient psychiatric rating scalepreliminary report. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1973;9(1):1328.

26. Kuhl HC, Hartwig I, Petitjean S, Muller-Spahn F, Margraf J, Bader K. Validation of the Symptom Checklist SCL-27 in psychiatric patients: Psychometric testing of a multidimensional short form. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2010; 14(2):145–9.

27. Kubinger K. The intelligence test-battery AID 2 as a prototypical globalized test. Test Int. 2008;19:13–4.

28. Petermann F, Petermann U. HAWIK-IV. 3rd ed. Bern: Huber Verlag; 2010. 29. Melchers P, Preuß U. Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Eightsth ed.

Frankfurt/Main: Pearson Assessment; 2009.

30. Harris S. An evaluation of the Snijders-Oomen nonverbal intelligence scale for young children. J Pediatr Psychol. 1982;7(3):239–51.

31. Aman MG, Singh NN, Stewart AW, Field CJ. The aberrant behavior checklist: a behavior rating scale for the assessment of treatment effects. Am J Ment Defic. 1985;89(5):485–91.

32. Newton JT, Sturmey P. The Aberrant Behaviour Checklist: a British replication and extension of its psychometric properties. J Ment Defic Res. 1988;32(Pt 2):8792.

33. Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, von der Schulenburg JM. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6(2):12430.

34. Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burstrom K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, et al. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):87586.

35. Loyd BH, Abidin RR. Revision of the parenting stress index. J Pediatr Psychol. 1985;10(2):169–77.

36. Honigfeld G. NOSIE–30: history and current status of its use in pharmacopsychiatric research. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry. 1974;7:238–63.

37. Honigfeld G, Gillis RD, Klett CJ. NOSIE-30: a treatment-sensitive ward behavior scale. Psychol Rep. 1966;19(1):180–2.

38. Linden M, Baron S, Muschalla B. Mini-ICF-Rating für Aktivitäts- und Partizipationsstörungen bei psychischen Erkrankungen. Bern: Hans Huber Verlag; 2009.

39. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):14537.

40. Hartley SL, Wheeler AC, Mailick MR, Raspa M, Mihaila I, Bishop E, et al. Autism symptoms across adulthood in men with Fragile X syndrome: a cross-sectional analysis. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(11):3668–79. 41. Gomez-Mancilla B, Berry-Kravis E, Hagerman R, von Raison F, Apostol G, Ufer


42. Berry-Kravis E, Des Portes V, Hagerman R, Jacquemont S, Charles P, Visootsak J, et al. Mavoglurant in fragile X syndrome: Results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(321):321ra5. 43. Berry-Kravis EM, Hessl D, Rathmell B, Zarevics P, Cherubini M, Walton-Bowen

K, et al. Effects of STX209 (arbaclofen) on neurobehavioral function in children and adults with fragile X syndrome: a randomized, controlled, phase 2 trial. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(152):152ra27.

44. Emerson E, Einfeld S, Stancliffe RJ. The mental health of young children with intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2010;45(5):57987.

45. Gallagher A, Hallahan B. Fragile X-associated disorders: a clinical overview. J Neurol. 2012;259(3):401–13.

46. Hartley SL, Seltzer MM, Raspa M, Olmstead M, Bishop E, Bailey DB. Exploring the adult life of men and women with fragile X syndrome: results from a national survey. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2011;116(1):16–35.

47. Habetaler F, Thome J, Reis O. Polypharmacy in the treatment of subjects with intellectual disability. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2015;122 Suppl 1:S93–S100. 48. Young NJ, Findling RL. An update on pharmacotherapy for autism spectrum

disorder in children and adolescents. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2015;28(2):91–101. 49. Hässler F, Reis O. Pharmacotherapy of disruptive behavior in mentally

retarded subjects: A review of the current literature. Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2010;16(3):26572.

50. Wang H, Pati S, Pozzo-Miller L, Doering LC. Targeted pharmacological treatment of autism spectrum disorders: fragile X and Rett syndromes. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015;9:55.

51. Fragile X Foundation. Consensus of the Fragile X Clinical & Research Consortium on Clinical Practices. Medication for Individuals with Fragile X Syndrome. Washington DC, USA. Updated version October 2012. Internet: http://www.fragilex.org/treatment-intervention/consensus-on-clinical-practices/. Accessed 11 Mar 2016.

52. Morfeld M, Bullinger M, Nantke J, Brahler E. The version 2.0 of the SF-36 Health Survey: results of a population-representative study. Soz Praventivmed. 2005;50(5):292–300.

53. Noyes J, Edwards RT. EQ-5D for the assessment of health-related quality of life and resource allocation in children: a systematic methodological review. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1117–29.

54. Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004; 58(8):63541.

55. Kidd SA, Lachiewicz A, Barbouth D, Blitz RK, Delahunty C, McBrien D, et al. Fragile X syndrome: a review of associated medical problems. Pediatrics. 2014;134(5):995–1005.

We accept pre-submission inquiries

Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal

We provide round the clock customer support

Convenient online submission

Thorough peer review

Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services

Maximum visibility for your research

Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit


Table 2 Neurological findings
Table 3 Prevalence of seizures and mental disorders
Table 5 Non-pharmacological therapy (number of appointments) in the 12 months prior to inclusion


Related documents

 A complementary validation of clinical measures including EDSS, MSWS-12 and distance walked during 6MW based on correlations with gait measures using inertial

We design a novel speech feature post-processing method based on the extracted intrinsic mode functions to achieve noise-robustness for automatic speech recognition.. Evaluation

After the procedure, one patient in 2D group received two cycles of concurrent chemotherapy and molecular-targeted therapy, and another patient received immunotherapy two times

independent over the years, they remain tied together by this basic organizational feature. Given the single-entity nature of the league, it makes little sense to evaluate the

framework offers clear support for the deficit-financing hypothesis. The deficit-financing hypothesis predicts that taxpayers tend to dis- count the future tax liabilities that

Habermas's Discourse Theory of Law, 35 F LA.. Weber’s Social Theory and Secularization ... Habermas’s Social Theory and Secularization ... Legal Positivism and Legal Formalism

This ability to withdraw opens the unsettling possibility that the number of states not subject to the NPT’s obligations could rise, increasing the number of states that NNWSs

.Heavy metal concentrations in plants growing in crude oil contaminated soil in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.. African Journal of Pharmacy and